"Let Us Prey"-Hunter Lundy

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

What if he and his wife cannot have children? Isn't that a requirement also?

The way it reads, Paul was making his pick among those who had already had wife, and children. Not exactly newly weds. The whole overseer of a family unit was a litmus test for the candidate.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The way it reads, Paul was making his pick among those who had already had wife, and children. Not exactly newly weds. The whole overseer of a family unit was a litmus test for the candidate.

I am not suggesting newlyweds. What if a man has had a long marriage with out the fruit of the womb. To me your approach of interpretation also makes it necessary to have children to be in the ministry regardless. Generally speaking I think Paul's command for the deacon's and bishop's criteria fits most of all. I still don't think that marriage is meant to be a proving ground, when he in other places recommends us to not marry.

I certainly believe that people with marriage trouble should not be thinking about church government positions. I just don't see the common sense in disqualifying people from church offices because of choices to abstain from the flesh. I think Paul would think we could read between the lines in some areas. IMO

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

What if he and his wife cannot have children? Isn't that a requirement also?

For office of overseer? Seems to be the case.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I am not suggesting newlyweds. What if a man has had a long marriage with out the fruit of the womb. To me your approach of interpretation also makes it necessary to have children to be in the ministry regardless.

My approach? Brother, what can I say, this is how the scripture reads. It admonishes those who would choose the eldership of bishop or deacon that the test of leadership be observed in their home. Husband of one wife? Children must give respect? I mean seriously, no hypothetical is even warranted here. This is as plain as Acts 2:38. This isn't my interpretation, this is plain old fashion wording. Husband one wife, means he has to be a faithful man, and be able to take care of situations in the home, and have his children (young) respectful. Thus saith Paul, not EB.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Generally speaking I think Paul's command for the deacon's and bishop's criteria fits most of all. I still don't think that marriage is meant to be a proving ground, when he in other places recommends us to not marry.

Marriage isn't a proving ground? Then why even place it on the list to the Evangelist Timothy? Again, these aren't suggestions, because if they were then you could flip flop and modify the entire list according to your feelings?
1 Corinthians 7 isn't dealing with the criteria of minister as in 1st Timothy 3.
Again, if Paul is willy nilly throwing things out there, then we have no criteria in 1st Timothy 3 at all.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I certainly believe that people with marriage trouble should not be thinking about church government positions. I just don't see the common sense in disqualifying people from church offices because of choices to abstain from the flesh. I think Paul would think we could read between the lines in some areas. IMO

Reading between the lines is what makes a Mormon, and Moses Berg's Children of God. Paul wasn't writing for people to read between the lines. The Apostle Peter had some strong words about people reading between the lines of Paul's works 2 Peter 3:15-16 .

Here is the big indicator that Paul meant a married man, a faithful man, who ruled his house well as a litmus test.

1 Timothy 3:5

For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how will he care for God’s church?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Here is the big indicator that Paul meant a married man, a faithful man, who ruled his house well as a litmus test.

1 Timothy 3:5

For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how will he care for God’s church?

You know, if a man simply has no children, and never did, he does not know how to manage his own family, because he simply hasn't managed a family before. And the argument of the apostle stands even more clearly - one cannot know how to oversee the church of God if one doesn't have the experience of successfully managing one's own family.

And thus, Paul is ruling out as unqualified those who have never had children, who have never had to raise and manage a family.

It's like if you are applying for a management position, and the job requirement includes 'has experience successfully managing an office or department'. Suppose you were to say 'Well, I've never actually managed an office or department, but I have managed my own personal life quite well.' They are going to tell you 'Sorry, you don't meet the posted requirements' and they might even be a wee bit upset with you for ignoring the stated pre-requisites for applying for the job...

[Esaias]

As for Paul telling people not to get married, he said it was for 'the present distress'. It's common sense for a person not to get married in the middle of life-threatening persecution. And, further, he did not say for those who were married and who had managed their households well should get divorced or separate, either. So, his advice for young people not to get married in the midst of a persecution would not even affect the availability of qualified elders one way or the other anyway.

[Esaias]

And keep in mind, Paul is not giving qualifications for someone to 'preach the word'. He is speaking about oversight of the local church.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yes, I mean your approach of interpretation. I understand what the scripture says. I also know that Paul says it is better to remain unmarried. We interpret scripture with all the scripture. We don't just isolate one verse from the rest and take it to some literal extreme when it causes conflict with other passages in the Bible. If people take Mt. 28:19 to the extreme literal then it becomes disharmonious to Acts 2:38. The name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus. This is my point.

More of what I meant is marriage isn't "the" proving ground for the ministry. There are unmarried people who are blameless and hold a good report with all those around them (this the exception most will marry 99.9999%). By some remaining unmarried it is a sacrifice made unto God and demonstrates self control. This criteria was placed on the list to Timothy no doubt that the majority of the elder men in the church were certainly married and so it was important for them to meet the criteria. Although Paul would have been disqualifying himself and other of the apostles to make a married with children a necessity to have oversight of the church.

Come on EB, you and I both know that all scripture is not crystal clear on everything. I. We all in some places read between the lines. At some point we all commit to a specific interpretation even when it may not be perfectly laid out. That has nothing to do with apostasy. It sounds good in making a case for what you believe. I have a elder man of whom I respect tell me before that he doesn't say, "I believe", but instead he says "the Bible says". I like to say the Bible says, but I feel sometimes convicted to say the Bible says this or that when I know in my heart that there are other verses which certainly muddy up the water of theology. What I am saying is that some things are not always as black and white as we make them. That is why we have the Holy Ghost and will have to answer to God for what we commit ourselves to. Where scripture is not cut and dry we are to have the Spirit of truth in our hearts.

I agree if a man is married and can't manage his own family how can he take the oversight in the church. I don't believe Paul was telling Timothy a man must go and get married and have children to prove himself for a leadership role in the church. The deacons that included Stephen in the book of Acts where to be full of wisdom and the Holy Ghost, but no reference made about them having to be married. I am in agreement that divorcees and polygamists are not qualified for oversight in the church,but this was not meant for men who have committed there all to Christ and have chosen to remain unmarried out of piety.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And keep in mind, Paul is not giving qualifications for someone to 'preach the word'. He is speaking about oversight of the local church.

So people who have fell into sin can again be restored to a ministry of preaching the word?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

So people who have fell into sin can again be restored to a ministry of preaching the word?

Well, that was (one of) my original question(s) on this thread!

Lot's of answers given, but I had asked for what the Bible says about that subject.

I see an interesting statement:

But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
(1 Corinthians 9:27)

castaway: G96

ἀδόκιμος
adokimos
ad-ok'-ee-mos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1384; unapproved, that is, rejected; by implication worthless (literally or morally): - castaway, rejected, reprobate.
Total KJV occurrences: 8

Paul didn't seem to have the attitude that he maintained self control so he wouldn't sin and have to go through an apostolic restoration process. Rather, he feared that if he didn't keep his body under subjection he would wind up being a REPROBATE. And a reprobate is not 'an incorrigible pervert', but one who is REJECTED. One who is CAST OFF. He feared that God would CAST HIM OFF as REJECTED, as WORTHLESS for the ministry of preaching, and (likely) lost and consigned to a lake of fire.

Paul seemed to have a different take on preaching and ministry than perhaps we do today.